Thought of the day
If you’re going to spend your days complaining how the media is supposedly liberally biased, then become a journalist. Ask yourself why those journalists happen to have (perceived) biases (for instance, are you seriously claiming that when they’re hired they’re given some kind of political litmus test?), and why so few conservatives are willing to do the legwork journalism on their own. What is it about journalism, in your mind, that is inherently liberally biased? Don’t just start with the assumption that it’s true. What is your hypothesis for why it’s true? And, in your opinion, why is it that these journalists, the people who are getting the information firsthand, directly from the sources, conducting the most research into topics as a group, happen to side with the left? Why are academics, another group constantly attacked by the right as being biased, the most educated in their fields, usually left of center? Why are scientists, yet another group constantly attacked by the right as being biased, who also happen to be incredibly knowledgeable in their fields, usually left of center?
I think you’ve got a couple problems with your post, Simon.
The entire structure of your argument is a little odd. I’m not sure if you’re saying that there is no liberal bias in journalism or advocating that there should be.
Causality. You imply that journalists and academics tend to be liberal because they are more informed and/or better educated. That would only be true if the people in those professions became liberals after becoming journalists or professors. It’s at least as likely that those professions tend to be more attractive to people who are already liberal.
It’s not a surprise that academics tend to be liberal. People usually vote their own interest. Because academics enjoy high-paying jobs that are highly-subsidized by the government, it’s in their best interest to support a worldview that promotes more government rather than less government.
The reasons journalists are liberal are less clear. I think a big part of it is a hangover from Watergate. That particular scandal set the tone for nearly every kid who went to journalism school for the next twenty years: Nixon was a Republican. Nixon was bad. Thus, Republican’s are bad.
People tend to hire people who are like themselves. Once an ideology becomes dominant in a field like journalism or academia, it’s self-perpetuating.
The undeniable fact is that most journalists vote for Democrats. The only question is whether or not they can keep that bias out of their reporting.
Personally, I think they usually can. But after eight years of a very unpopular Republican presidency, I suspect that many journalists’ self-restraint has grown threadbare.
On the other hand, once Obama wins (if he does win), I think the natural tendency of journalists to go after the folks in power will reassert itself.
I’m not sure if I answered your question, Simon. If you want to rephrase it, I’ll be happy to try again.
Sorry, if my reply is a little unclear. Your system stripped all the HTML from my post. It’s easier to read at my place.
What is it about journalism, in your mind, that is inherently liberally biased?
There is no true journalism, most reporting is done almost as an oped piece than a objective view of the event at hand. You almost always find skewed comments in a written piece that favors or dis-favors one side.
The VP debate is one fine example. Palin did an excellent job where everybody had low expectations. So they dubbed the success as “only” a VP debate and down played the event. Had she failed it would have been reported in a much different way